Average retirement age (regional)?

[bramos]

Hello everyone,

It's been a while since my last visit here, but I am stuck with a question which I think is (at least a little bit) easier to solve for you than for me. If this is the case, I'm very much hoping you can help me out !

For an aircraft design assignment I'm currently working on a market analysis of the regional (civil) aviation market, focussing on the part that seats around 80 people. I have obtained various forecasts, but these run to 2031, whereas our design is to be launched around 2035. Therefore, I have decided to analyze data from Airfleets.net myself, to see average ages at which particular aircraft (ATR42/72, CRJ, DHC-8, Embraer E-Jets, F50/70/100, S2000) and to (if everything works out) be able to at least ground my statements that, just as there is now, there will be a lot of aircraft that need to be replaced in 25 years time.

I am thus looking for the average retirement age of this sort of aircraft and, if available, for aforementioned types. Looking for this data, I have come across an FAA-website (http://av-info.faa.gov/GetFleetAge.asp), which itself warns to be outdated and is by no means complete in this market segment. Do you maybe know of other sources I might look into? Are you aware of retirement policies by airlines operating these birds, and the reasoning behind that?

Thank you so very much, and looking forward to your replies,
Bram

[CJ]

Bram, if you search the internet you will find this is a hotly debated subject in the industry, particularly in the 150-seat segment. Obviously this is being driven to a large extent by the introduction of the A320neo series as well as the 737max. In the 'regional' segment the large-scale retirements of CRJ100 & 200s at a relatively young age has caught the attention as well.

Generally speaking, the industry has used 25 years as an averige retirement age for a long period of time, at least since the early to mid 80s if not before. This figure is also used by most if not all lessors. Mind you, depreciating an asset like an aircraft over the longest realistic period of time yields the lowest depreciation charge and therefore contributes to a low monthly lease rental. Close to half of the world's airliner fleet is currently out on operational leases and this percentage is expected to slowly rise in the future. Consequently it is in the interest of the aircraft financing and lessee community to keep the averige retirement age, or rather economic life, around 25 years.

Obviously, there is also a so-called technical life of aircraft, which may be shorter or longer. The CRJ100 & 200 are 50-seater jets with relatively high trip costs as well as seatmile costs, as compared to similarly sized turboprops, has been hit hard. With (the expectation of) rising fuel prices these aircraft will become even more uneconomic on short segments. The only market these aircraft can still be used in is in relatively long distance and low pax demand segment, where turboprop blocktimes would be too long. E.g. 500 nm routes in Russia or Africa. However, there are not many of those routes. Another aspect is that many CRJs were financed and leased on a 15-year term. As this period expires, many CRJs come off lease. Consequently, the market is not large enough to absorb all these aircraft and CRJs are being cannibalized, particularly for engines with time remaining. Also there is not much of an aftermarket, like cargo conversion. As a result a lot of CRJs have died at a young age. You could probably do a count. My gut feeling is that by the time, say, 90 % of all CRJ 100 & 200s will have been put out to pasture, the average age will be far less than 25 years. Of course, you will have to wait for another 5 or 6 years or so....

Turboprops, in contrast, are the most efficient way of aerial transport. So as long as the aircraft remain supported, even after production will have stopped at some point in time, the aircraft can go on for a long time, be it in pax role or cargo, or even special mission. I always like to think of some of the PIA F27s, which managed to operate for 35 years and were retired at 89,930 landings, just 70 landings short of their technical life...

There is another, new aspect which in the future will also play a role. Some countries have introduced a maximum aircraft age when imported into the country. E.g. in India it is 15 years, Indonesia 20 years, various African countries also use 20 years, but China uses 10 years and Russia now has a 'soft' rule of about 10 years (holds for aircraft on a Russion AOC even though these are registered in Bermuda or Ireland or France) ! By (my) latest count we are easily talking 30+ countries, which are primarily 'emerging nations'. One of the results is that a usual market for second hand (or better: pre-owned) aircraft is disappearing. Thus less markets for 'older' aircraft contributing to a lower averige life. Of course the aircraft manufacturers like this as it provides more sales possibilities in those countries, e.g. China... (The reason behind this move is airworthiness authorities in those countries, which cannot exercise sufficient oversight over their operators. In case of a serious accident, the government must be seen 'doing something'. Hence they ban older aircraft from entering the country.

This may not be exactly the answer you were looking for, but I believe it touches upon some of the salient issues (though in a 'black and white fashion') and should help you to do your own analysis. One final remark: if you are looking at a launch in 2035, do something else now and come back in 2020, do a technology roadmap for 5 years and start designing in 2025. I will just be retired by that year - hopefully. Good luck, P

[Jaap]

Hello everyone,

... whereas our design is to be launched around 2035.
...
Bram

Must become an interesting project: Launch in 2035, 20 years production run, 25 years operation before retirment makes the year 2080 (excluding time between launch and first flight)

What fuel will the engines run on??

Jaap

[bramos]

Thanks for these extensive replies!

@ CJ: Yes, your opinion/analysis will definitely help. I was planning on going in the same direction (indeed, props have lower TOC, phase-outs start early for RJ's, etc), but glad to see I'm not the only one. I also found some 'factual' confirmation online. ATR expects the market share of propeller-driven aircraft to grow (to about 50/50), leasing company Avolon predicts an increase of average retirement age from 12 to about 18 years (by 2020), from which I assume that by 2030/2032, it will be in the range of 22-23 years (creeping up on the rest of the market). Thanks for the insights on these new policies, I haven't heard of these before. Do you maybe have a source I can refer to?

@ Jaap: It for sure will be an interesting project. We have not decided on a propulsion system yet, but if you're interested, check the VoltAir concept by EADS, and the SUGAR-series by Boeing and other US airframers.